I've read the posts and I see a lot of differing opinions. I would like to follow up on a couple if I may.

Someone mentioned .45's. but we all know that one well placed shot with a 9mm will do the job. I seriously doubt that any really well placed shots were made.

Another poster said that the 9mm was the right tool for the job. Reasoning that they would have run out of ammo sooner with .45's. These guys fired 84 rounds. And yet I say no mention that they ran out. So I can't be sure that more in this case is better. One well placed 9 or .45 would have been enough.

Then there is the point about a rifle. Now these officers were unable to take the time, or were unable to make one good head shot with two pistols. Why can I expect they would do better with a rifle? Are rifles easier to aim? Perhaps better penetration would have gone through cover.

My thinking is at some point they should have waited for back up. Swat (with rifles) if necessary. The suspect only fired one shot that we are aware of. And a hail of bullets didn't work. And it was just blind luck that others weren't injured.